Cox v. McLaughlin

Citations

• 54 Cal. 605

Syllabus

<p>[The case was decided, and an opinion filed August 14th, 1876; and, are-hearing having been granted, was again deciddd April 5th, 1878. The last opinion refers to and adopts the first; but in the report of the case, (53 Cal. 500) l lie first opinion is omitted. It is now inserted at ’the request of Mr. Justice McKinstry.]</p> <p>Contract—Breach—Damages—Termination of Contract.—When an entire contract is terminated by the employer, against the will of the contractor, the latter is not confined to the actual value of the work done, but may prosecute bis action for the breach of the agreement, and may recover, as damages, the profits he would have made had he been allowed to complete the work.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Failure to Pat—Definition.—The contract is thus terminated where the employer prevents or prohibits the completion of the work—tile contractor being ready and willing to perform. But a mere failure to pay money, due upon the contract before the' completion of the work, does not constitute such a prevention.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Id.—PvEPCission—Implied Promise.—It seems that, upon such failure to pay, the contractor could treat the specific contract as rescinded, and bring suit on the implied promise of the employer to pay the value of the work actually done.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence.—In such case, where the work, so far as performed, has been performed in accordance witli the specifications of the special contract, such contract may ordinarily bo introduced as ovidenco of value; but whether in the present case the contract is so admissible is net decided.</p>